Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

The Facts Behind the Under-26 Mandate

The provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that requires health insurance companies to let children stay on their parents’ policy up to age 26, has recently figured prominently in the news. Most Democrats enthusiastically support it, and a few Republicans do as well, arguing that it has already helped 2.5 million young adults gain health insurance, and will “help” many more in the future. Though it’s politically popular to provide a “safety net” for America’s young adults, there are many characteristics of the under-26 mandate that make it an unsustainable and unwise policy.

Among the major shortcomings of the under-26 mandate:

It will increase health care premiums for everyone, not just those who keep adult children on their policy. (Kaiser document)

It has already increased costs for the average family between $150 and $450 (New York Times, considering an average premium of $15,073)

It has already resulted in some employers dropping all types of dependent coverage, to avoid these additional costs. (Wall Street Journal article)

Although the mandate is supposed to support young adults in an important transitional period of their lives, it will actually create more difficulties for them. For example, it will:

Increase insurance costs for young adults who must buy their own insurance by 19-30%. (Forbes article)

And, despite what many believe, this mandate isn’t the only way young adults can be guaranteed coverage.

Even since the mandate took effect on September 23, 2010, some young adults have obtained health insurance through a new job, rather than as a result of being added to their parents’ plan. (Bureau of Labor Statistics employment reports for September 2010 and June 2011, the period measured by HHS.)

Even without the federal health law, as of June 2010, 37 states had extended dependent coverage provisions in health insurance. So even if the federal law were to be struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress, many newly insured young adults would still be able to remain on their parents’ plan. (To learn about your state’s policy, click here for a table from the National Conference of State Legislators.)

Even without any government mandates (state or federal), many insurance companies offered plans with some types of dependent coverage for young adults. (Evidenced by this 2008 study from the GAO showing that a strong majority of college students were already insured on their parents’ plans.)

UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest publicly traded health insurer, recently announced that it would continue to include under-26 coverage in its family plans, even if the mandate is struck down or repealed. Other insurers are likely to follow suit.

As these facts confirm, freedom generally always works better than government. The private sector can and will provide affordable health insurance coverage options for everyone, including young adults, if allowed to do so.

I am not sure what the other option is. Fewer businesses are offering health benefits to new employees and the kids simply don't go to the doctor and develop worse more expensive problems or go to the ER.

A new analysis finds that the health insurance plans offered on ObamaCare exchanges offer a choice of 34 percent fewer health care providers, on average, than plans offered on the private market. The report specifies that:

America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association that lobbies on behalf of insurance companies in Washington and in state legislatures, announced on Wednesday that Marilyn Tavenner, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), will serve as its president and chief operating officer. Tavenner oversaw the disastrous implementation of ObamaCare during her tenure, which, some suspect, ultimately led in her resignation from CMS in January.

The Supreme Court has now largely upheld ObamaCare, with a carve-out from the contraceptive mandate for closely held companies, the first three times the law has been challenged in the Court. Because of this, it is difficult to have much faith that the Court will ever overturn the law based on constitutional concerns. However, there is still another case working its way through the DC Circuit, Sissel v. HHS, challenging ObamaCare based on the Origination Clause.

Health insurance companies are signaling huge health insurance premium increases ahead of the 2016 open enrollment period. This is due to the droves of older and sicker consumers who signed up for coverage on the ObamaCare Exchanges, according to a report from The New York Times. Requests submitted by insurance are approved by state regulators, such as state insurance commissioners, but the proposed rates reflect a higher utilization of healthcare than expected.

The Supreme Court has taken an active role in redefining, rather than simply interpreting, our country’s laws. Two clear examples of this can be seen in the two ObamaCare opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts, NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Whether it is calling a penalty a tax, or saying an exchange established by Kathleen Sebelius was established by the states, the Supreme Court is playing an active role in changing legislation.

The newly handed-down Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has garnered a great deal of debate. The 6-3 vote in favor of the administration does nothing to fix the unworkable flaws that remain and continue to largely define Obamacare. No matter the lens used to view the ACA, the prognosis is bad.

Some words apparently have no meaning, even when written in plain English, according to a majority of Supreme Court justices. Today the Court reached its long awaited decision in King v. Burwell. The Court ruled 6-3 for Burwell, holding that the federal subsidies can continue to flow to states that have not established an exchange.

The King v. Burwell lawsuit has generated a lot of interest, and for good reason. It’s an important case that has broad implications for the future of ObamaCare. But the issue at hand is a complex one, and this has led - both willfully and accidentally - to a lot of bad or misleading reporting. Let’s clear things up, shall we? Here are the top five misconceptions about King v. Burwell.

Before policymakers debate over whether or not government should intervene in private industry (the answer is no!), they should start asking themselves whether or not government is competent enough to even intervene correctly.